State v. Comstock
Supreme Court of Vermont
Grand jurors complaint. Prosecution for violations of the act of 1850 regulating the traffic in intoxicating drinlcs (Oomp. Stat. Oh. 87, p. 504.; Prosecution for a violation of the law of 1850, (Comp. Stat. Ch. 87, p. 504) regulating the traffic in intoxicating drinks. The complaint was as follows.
Read the full summary
Grand jurors complaint. Prosecution for violations of the act of 1850 regulating the traffic in intoxicating drinlcs (Oomp. Stat. Oh. 87, p. 504.; Prosecution for a violation of the law of 1850, (Comp. Stat. Ch. 87, p. 504) regulating the traffic in intoxicating drinks. The complaint was as follows. “To Loren Griswold, Esq., a justice of the peace for said “ county of Orange, comes Horace Wheeler, a grand juror, for “ the town of Randolph, in said county, and complaint makes that “ David Comstock, of said Randolph, on the first day of March, A. “ D. 1851, at said Randolph, did become a dealer…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
It is argued that the complaint in this case is bad, because it is not stated to have been made upon the office oath of the grand juror; hut this objection cannot avail the party. Horace Wheeler, the grand juror, comes before the justice as grand juror, and, as such, he makes his complaint against the defendant, and signs the complaint in his official capacity. We should presume that he had taken the oath prescribed for -grand jurors, and, consequently the official act of his, in making the complaint, must of necessity have been under the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. FancherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Commonwealth v. FreeloveMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- State v. WebberSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1887
- Robinson v. HesserNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1887